Last week, I voiced my concerns about the “Klout Perks” influencer outreach program, based on an experience with my “influential” @StadiumInsider Twitter account. To sum it up, I opined that if influencers accepted too many perks, or broadcast the idea that they were influencers, they’d eventually lose their influence.  I used my experience at Fox’s Lone Star premiere as an example and Megan Berry of Klout was kind enough to respond. Here’s what she said:

I’ve actually noticed the opposite effect here, so your thoughts are intriguing. For example, for those who participated in the Virgin America perk, all their Klout scores (almost universally) went up afterwards, not because of anything we did but because they got so much engagement from their audience about this event. They tweeted about getting the perk which got people interested in what it was and how they were chosen, then they also tweeted about the experience (i.e. flying Virgin America, visiting SF etc.) and people responded to that. The currency of the influence we’re measuring is, in effect, information and klout perks give you access to an experience or product before anyone else (or that not many other people have access to).

It’s interesting that you audience didn’t find your tweets about the event compelling — perhaps what this really says is that Lone Star was not properly targeted towards your audience — which is something we could do better in the future. I bet if it had been a sports related perk (i.e. meeting the team or something) you would have gotten way more engagement.

It makes perfect sense.  For Klout Perks to be successful, they need to be extremely targeted toward influencers of what Brian Solis refers to as “nicheworks.”

Great to see such a thoughtful response to this matter from Klout.  It seems like they’re really dedicated to doing influencer outreach the right way.

Lately, I’ve become increasingly intrigued by Klout.com and their Twitter influencer outreach program, “Klout Perks.”  Klout was on my radar for a while (I had checked my score and had been invited to a “Klout Up” in NYC once), but I really started paying attention once Virgin America and Starbucks partnered with them.  In achieving partnerships with two of the top brands in the social media space, Klout went from another random website measuring a made up “Twitter score” to a legitimate new media strategy tool.  

Shortly thereafter, I received a special invitation by Fox Television (via Klout) to attend a screening of their new show “Lone Star” at the social media-savvy Roger Smith Hotel in NYC. As a consumer of media, I found it cool.  I was somehow being targeted (the folks from Klout wouldn’t elaborate on why Fox wanted me) to see a show before other people. What’s not to like?

Then, as I became more immersed in the Klout experience (tweeting from the premiere, interacting with @Klout on Twitter, entering contests with the hashtag #Klout), I realized that the audience that I supposedly had “influence” over didn’t want to hear it. They tuned me out at best and at worst, some followers became downright hostile toward the existence of Klout.

In Klout’s haste to market themselves and get their name out, they’re running the risk of affecting the organic nature of Twitter influence. Bringing the idea of online influencers into regular conversations just doesn’t resonate.  Klout has a great tool on their hands, but at the core, it is a marketing tool. Nobody wants to talk about a marketing tool when they follow someone on Twitter to hear about baseball (my influential account is @StadiumInsider).

Here’s where I take out my crystal ball.  There is an “influencer bubble” that is bound to emerge, which I touched on in a previous post.  Regardless of the type of social network -online or offline - there are always certain people who are “tribe leaders” by nature.  The prominence of online social networks has made it easier for services such as Klout.com to quantify the idea of influence and find these tribe leaders. But what happens when people are made blatantly aware that they are influencers within an online social network?  Suddenly they have something called “klout” and businesses want to reach out to THEM instead of others. Will these influencers continue to act the same way that made them influencers in the first place?  Or will they subconsciously become marketing tools, influenced by whatever brand or business has reached out to them. 

The influencers who change their behaviors within their online social network will slowly but surely lose their influence - it wasn’t what got them there in the first place.  

This seems painfully obvious, so it was surprising to see Klout.com encouraging their influencers to shout their name and tell the world what they were doing. It is important for Klout to be transparent, but by encouraging everyone to talk about influence, the very concept they’re looking to measure is being manipulated. 

Virgin America and Starbucks got to where they are by blazing trails and testing out new “tools” such as Klout.  That doesn’t automatically mean that Klout is going to be a sustainable marketing tool, but it is certainly a player in the new media strategy world that people need to pay close attention to.